The failure of the refugee lobby

If refugee advocates wish to change public opinion in the asylum seeker debate, they need to change their approach. Rather than demanding compassion, they must demonstrate how Australians will benefit from welcoming asylum seekers into the community, writes Shaun Crowe.

In a campaign largely defined by furious disagreement over mild difference, Wednesday night's 7.30 Report surely takes the cake. Debating immigration policy, both Tony Burke and Scott Morrison clashed over which party would most effectively achieve their shared aim: that is, in the words of Tony Abbott, how best to "stop the boats".

Regardless of the merit of "deterrence", the spectacle made one thing clear. Despite a decade of progressive advocacy, a decade of rallies and petitions, the political reality hasn't meaningfully changed. If anything, the opposite has occurred: deterrence is now deeply entrenched, offshore processing is bipartisan and now, the Coalition is determined to tighten the borders even further, with Scott Morrison advocating greater barriers to permanent resettlement.

With this in mind, it's now time to admit that, for all their good intentions, the refugee lobby and political left have failed. The major parties haven't moved, political rhetoric hasn't changed and, perhaps most significantly, a recent Lowy Institute poll found that most Australians still support offshore processing.

All in all, the hearts and minds have not been won.

But why is this the case? After a decade of intense advocacy, why has the pro-refugee movement been unable to transform elite and popular opinion?

The answer, I think, lies in a failure of political strategy.

Instead of convincing Australians that refugees represent a social good, that they can actually improve our communities, advocates have overwhelmingly argued that we need to show "compassion" to the world's needy. Couched in terms of "moral obligation", these arguments have ignored one of the key factors underpinning effective social change: that people are more likely to support something when they deem it to be in their community's interest, and not simply a burden that they're forced to accept.

Take Christine Milne's electoral pitch. The Greens leader has argued that Australians should support their refugee policy because they're the only party offering compassion on asylum seekers. Milne hasn't suggested that asylum seekers will enrich the lives of existing Australians, she has simply appealed to moral abstractions, like our "humanity".

The Asylum Seeker Resource Centre (ASRC) has a similar approach. A quick scan of the lobby group's recent Facebook posts uncovers a number of important messages, but two themes are most persistent: on one hand, the "illegality" of Labor's PNG policy and, on the other, the need for Australians to extend their "compassion" and "humanity" to displaced people. Again, these are two abstractions, however admirable, that are largely detached from Australians' quality of life.

Historically, however, successful social movements have approached transformation from a different direction. For instance, when Ben Chifley introduced changes to social welfare after World War II, it was not simply because of a moral obligation to the unemployed: it was also because it provided the "aggregate demand" which would underpin the economics of growth and full employment. Unlike the Greens and ASRC pitches, change would benefit the whole community, not just those in need of charity.

Successful modern social movements have tended to heed this lesson. Paid parental leave, which is now bipartisan policy, was not purely prosecuted with abstractions based on gender theory. Rather, advocates have argued that, by allowing parents to return to work after time with their child, Australia would maximise its participation rate and industrial output. Again, economic benefits would be diffuse, not simply concentrated in those few receiving payments.

Climate advocates are increasingly recognising this reality. As the climate scientist Ben McNeil observed in his book, The Clean Industrial Revolution:

"After my Canberra experience, I realised that compelling scientific, environmental or moral arguments aren't strong enough to invoke the change needed to solve this problem... without an economic awakening, the changes needed to cushion the blow will never be realized."

McNeil and other advocates see that, if meaningful emissions abatement is to be legislated, it must be framed in terms of economic and social opportunity, not just threat.

It's now time for the refugee movement to also learn this lesson; to convince Australians of the benefits that refugees can bring, rather than implicitly accept their burden. It's time to shift from moralism to positive advocacy.

To the ARSC and Greens, here's some free marketing advice. Get Australia's most beloved refugees (Ahn Do, Frank Lowy and Dr Karl Kruszelnicki etc) and place them on billboards around our major cities. Next to their faces, place the words: "I'm a refugee".

Below each person, a simple message. For Ahn Do, "refugees make Australia a funnier place"; for Frank Lowy, "refugees make Australia a wealthier place"; and for Dr Karl Kruszelnicki, "refugees make Australia a smarter place".

Next to the "compassion" refrain, these basic, positive messages have a much better chance of cutting through to the public. Refugee advocates must accept that, if they want society to support increased humanitarian intakes, they first have to convince citizens that it will be a good thing for their community.

Questioning someone's compassion isn't going to change their mind. Calling someone a racist isn't going to change their mind. But convincing them that refugees are in their interest? That seems like a good place to start.

Shaun Crowe is a PhD student in Politics and International Relations at the Australian National University. He tweets at @shauncrowe. View his full profile here.

reaver:

16 Aug 2013 6:46:48pm

It's not only if they come here, Marilyn. People smuggling is recognised as a crime under International law. There's an entire Protocol to the Convention against Transnational Organized Crime solely dedicated to it. It's a crime no matter where it occurs.

greg:

Coogera:

16 Aug 2013 6:54:34pm

greg:

More scary is the fact we are not far behind Europe in the number of asylum seeker applications. On a per capita basis (2012) we get 0.7 application per 1000 of population. Germany gets 0.8 and France 0.9. On the other hand, states like Spain gets 0.1, Italy (often touted as overwhelmed) gets 0.3 and the UK 0.4.

I was recently in Paris for five weeks. The number of homeless families is very notable. They sleep in the streets in the better suburbs making them toilets. Begging and theft are commonplace.

antipostmodernism:

16 Aug 2013 7:26:08pm

Yes we have to be honest about likely outcomes. Opposition to asylum seekers should not be summarily dismissed as beyond the pale and seen as a failure of strategy but demands a realistic appraisal of integration prospects. There is no reason to be optimistic about the resettlement of people from medieval cultures.

Alfie:

Whitey:

16 Aug 2013 3:03:55pm

The problem with refugee policy is that we all know that there is a set number of refugees that Australia will take. We all know that every person accepted off a boat is one less from the UNHCR camps. We all know that allowing people to come in via people smugglers results in huge loss of life, running at around 2.5%. We are also told that a large percentage of these are economic refugees, as opposed to genuine refugees out of the camps. We also know that the people smugglers are a large organized criminal conspiracy, involving official corruption at their point of origin. To somehow spin this information to make us believe that not stopping the boats would be good, is going to be a hard sell.

anjali:

16 Aug 2013 8:27:46pm

"We also know that the people smugglers are a large organized criminal conspiracy, involving official corruption at their point of origin"

If that was really the issue, we'd be much harder on banksters. Your statement is totally out of touch with reality, ALL administrative processes in that part of the world are fraught with corruption, including at the UNHCR. After people cough up to be admitted in the UNHCR's "queue", it takes literally up to decades for things to move. Let us not forget that people smugglers, though they may be making a large profit, are saving people from bombs. People getting on boats are aware of what they're doing, but the impetus to flee human persecution is so strong that they do it anyway.

Ross:

16 Aug 2013 3:05:21pm

What the compassion lobby refuse to address is the public concern as to the social and economic implications as shown by statistics that highlight that after 5 years in Australia 90% plus of certain ' refugee ' groups are still on welfare.

BB:

Charles Beavis:

16 Aug 2013 3:05:21pm

The writer's comments are very valid for Australia, our population is mainly driven by self interest in anything that is proposed.A point I would like to see developed is the consequences of off shore processing and resettlement. Any move to force basically Islamic people, onto the population of the islands of the South West Pacific, will lead to a gradual increase in tension in the region. As Muslim clerics are invited to minister to the new populations, as mosques are built and cultural differences escalate, intervention by countries such as Indonesia will be invited, with the subsequent problems for all involved. It is so much better to resettle refugees in Australia, where, although they may live in culturally similar suburbs, there is a much better chance of them being assimilated into a productive and beneficial life. The costs would probably be less and the benefits greater for Australia.

Peter of Perth:

16 Aug 2013 3:07:05pm

Shaun, as far as I'm concerned and reading the thousands of comments on sites like this, it is pretty clear that not many Australians begrudge refugees and actually welcome them, but only the ones who come via the UN system, not those that have the cash to pay many thousands of dollars to criminals to bring them to Australia's back door to force themselves onto Australia's welfare system and every one of these economic migrants who arrives pushes a genuine refugee who has no cash, further back up the line. When we see so many so called 'refugees' hopping off the barge at Christmas Island wearing their designer clothes, carrying their laptops and looking and acting like anything but refugees escaping persecution, or anything else, it dents most people's compassion because it has been very obvious to most people for a very long time now that Australia is the target of freeloaders and the fact that in excess of 90% of them are still on full welfare after 5 years proves it and it is costing the taxpayers far more than we can afford and every single one of these arrivals should be immediately flown to the UN camp closest to their home country to wait their turn. If Australia's so called government had the backbone to do that, just watch how quickly the boats would stop coming but I certainly wouldn't hold my breath waiting for Rudd or Labor to do it.

James:

16 Aug 2013 3:16:18pm

Very well thought out piece, and couldn't agree more, as it is even refugee advocate groups seem to conform to the idea that refugees will be a burden on Australia, which already starts off their argument on a poor footing.

Darkless:

16 Aug 2013 3:16:29pm

Now this is an intelligent dicussion on refugees. Well written Shaun and I believe for the most part true. However I am sure there are strong preceptions that manyy recent boat arrivials will have difficulty assimilating and adding to our social wealth. Though in saying that, your point is very poinant and true. The "compassion' and moral obilgation argument sprotted by the Greens and such only hardens my heart on the issue and pushes me further to the right.

Sue:

16 Aug 2013 5:00:02pm

... and you assume that they want to assimilate?

Surely it is the height of racism to think that anyone from anywhere will come here and want to be like us?

In the same way it is the height of stupidity to allow anyone to come here and not think that the social and welfare safety nets we have put in place will be sustainable. That I will be made to seel my home to pay for my aged care is a sure sign that those safety nets are, in the least, tattered.

Sue:

16 Aug 2013 7:16:19pm

based no doubt on the "pretty" faces of boat people put up by the ABC.

Did you see the most recent effort to convince us that these are genuine refugees? Taken in by a carer, phone calls to mum and siblings and all years down the track. Imminent danger? I think not. Scam?

Giles:

16 Aug 2013 3:16:56pm

This is a straw man based on the assumption that those who oppose the boats object to refugees altogether.

I think you'll find that most of those who oppose the boats are very welcoming of the thousands of refugees like Anh Do, Karl Kruszelnicki and Frank Lowy who came here by the official UNHCR queue over the years.

There are good reasons for not wanting to open our borders to small boats: diseases, pests, contraband such as drugs and arms...

There are good reasons for having more sympathy for those refugees patiently waiting in the camps than those who have the money to pay people smugglers.

Mythbuster:

16 Aug 2013 3:43:30pm

What does the money have to do with Refugee status? Being successful financially does not prevent political, religious or other discrimination and persecution in countries like Iran, Irak or Afghanistan.

As to diseases, pests, arms and drugs you'll find far more of them on big container ships and 'regular' imports than on those insecure overfilled vessels where like in the days of slave trade the most valuable cargo are humans and where thorough searches are quasi guaranteed.

As to the official UNHCR queues - remind us again where to put the name down?

Alex:

reaver:

16 Aug 2013 6:15:36pm

No, Alex, Ahn Do did not come to Australia by boat and neither did Karl Kruszelnicki. Karl Kruszelnicki came by passenger ship from Sweden in 1950 as part of Australia's post-war migrant intake. Ahn Do and his family were flown to Australia from a refugee camp in Malaysia. Read his autobiography, "The Happy Refugee".

drive-by mooting:

Surely the best reason of all to discourage the sea voyagers is - wait for it - humanitarian.

The instant thought reflex on the part of most advocates is to reject this as a pretext for right-wing paranoia and racism, because it was used very effectively that way even before anyone drowned.

It's true that many of those spouting it don't give a damn about people actually drowning. It's true that Tony Abbot is very happy to resonate with them, if not identify with them.

People are not drowning because our refugee intake is too small (is anyone seriously arguing we can meet the global demand?), or because we treat them inhumanely when they get here. They are drowning because they get on overcrowded unseaworthy boats. The generosity of our intake is an important issue, but it is totally separate.

The humanitarian thing to do is to stop the boats. Just because Abbott and Morrison say it, dog-whistling as they work, doesn't mean it isn't true, no matter how nauseating it is to admit it. Some things are more important and the green side of politics has to be a bit more honest with themselves. Compassion by all means - but think it through, or we will have to endure more drownings, and only slightly less horrible, smug shots of Morrison saying I told you so.

Mark James:

16 Aug 2013 6:26:24pm

drive-by mooting, the only problem with what you say is that Australia stopping the boats will not actually stop people from getting on boats. Certainly, it may stop the drownings in our own seas and on our own front-pages, but it will not stop the drownings in some other country's seas, on some other country's front-pages.

If people are going to risk death at sea, for whatever reason, to get here, then they are likely to risk death at sea to get somewhere else.

Zoltar:

Allan:

16 Aug 2013 7:32:48pm

I am sure Australia has no problem letting anyone in who are assessed to be genuine refugees and arrive here in a legal way.However, saying that we want to relax the refugee policy so that any Bob or Joe can come in is like saying that a bank won't be robbed by handing out all its safe money to anyone who walks into the bank.

Zoltar:

16 Aug 2013 8:02:44pm

Mycal, close on 90% of those arriving by boat are male, whereas the gender split that we take from UNHCR camps is even.

Please argue that men are more worthy of our sympathy than women; or that the men in UNHCR camps should be left to rot, so that we can equalise gender sympathy for refugees. This issue distills down to choices like this. Make your choice.

Cherna:

"... convincing Australians that refugees represent a social good". Yes it may be so but the fundament of some-one destroying documents then being welcomed into our great Nation does not sit well.

I fear that no matter how you, or the elite try to spin the benefits the concept of fairness applies in most of our thinking. Not to mention the refugees that are scattered around the wold that hope one day to be repatriated to a better living of the kind offered by countries like Australia.

Not only fairness but compliance to a Nations legalities. To illustrate try and enter the USA without papers and see what happens.

Combine the two and no matter how you argue the case, people who enter Australia without papers, faill into the 2 grounds mentioned above.

The only solution is to open Australia for a free for all accepting one and all. That's the Greens approach! It is for that level of impracticality that the Coalition ask that we put the Greens last; and I for one will follow this advice.

Sarah:

There are over 14million illegal immigrants in the US.Has been going on for decades- with 2nd and 3rd generations being born in the US.How is that for fairness?

President Obama was trying to get Congress to agree to 'legalise" most of them- I am not sure if he managed it.

Compassion has no visible benifits -it needs none.The solution is not fostering wars as we have in Syria or did in Vietnam and CREATE refugees.There is no 'Manhood" ( utterly stupid statement) in demonsing the vulnerable or being cruel to them. Which is why I will put the LNP last-one spot behind the ALP.Now I am not suggesting an open Australia and neither are the Greens- another bit of Cherna misinformation.

Cherna:

16 Aug 2013 7:36:12pm

@ Sarah, there we go mudding the waters again!

The question was not about how many illegals are in Australia BUT (you) try and get into the USA without documentation and see how far you get! My argument (that you completely ignore) that destroying documents disqualifies entry into Oz.

Now try and get Obama legalise your entry and see how far you get...! On top of that we have illegals in the uSA that do have papers of origin when push comes to shove. Yet you expect us to accept all and sundry without any proof by way of papers...

Seems you just don't get the point - others will tho'

As for your comments about Syria, wars and "manhood" it really is drawing a long bow to try and include these into a simple post, with simple arguments as to why on the basis of 2 points of view that refugees who destroy documents should not be allowed into Oz!

But I've come to accept your tangential point of view of the world and like the banter... keep it up Sarah...

gerard oosterman:

16 Aug 2013 3:21:23pm

Why do we have to 'benefit'? What a strange request. I thought we welcome them because they are refugees and need compassion. The fact that compassion failed is our moral shortcoming.If you rescue a drowning person, do you first ask yourself for what benefit?

mike:

Tony:

16 Aug 2013 4:05:56pm

No but if you are rescuing drowning people everyday who then move into your house and expect you to feed them then you may well start asking questions. And then when yopu discover that these people you 'rescued' were not actually drowning but had simply jumped into the water so that they could take advantage of you then your attitude would probably change.

Your snide condemnation of your fellow Australians is exactly what the author was pointing out doesn't work. In my experience it is a technique employed by those wanting to appear compasssionate at someone elses expense.

Peter of Melbourne:

16 Aug 2013 4:15:25pm

Morality is the differentiation of intentions, decisions, and actions between those that are "good" and those that are "bad".

In the case of allowing our society to be threatened or destroyed for future generations of Australians by a flood of countryshoppers from failed societies, who have proven to have no intention to abandon the core principles/practices that caused their own societies to collapse in the first place, would be BAD! Which means the morals of people who think like yourself are so flawed it is ridiculous.

The future of not only my kids but also the society which they will grow up in outweighs any consideration of the bleeding heart brigade who wish do destroy our society to appease their pathetic egotistical guilt trips.

Greig:

16 Aug 2013 4:40:59pm

It is because of compassion, and the desire to protect lives, that there is now bipartisan policy to discourage people smuggling and entry to Australia by boat. In that way we don't have to rescue the drowning man (,woman or child).

Jimmy Peevtie:

16 Aug 2013 4:56:30pm

"persuasion is better than force" gerard. I don't know who said it, but it's one of the truest things I know.

I mean I see your point and agree it seems contrary spirit of the thing. But if others don't hold that view, yet you still wish them to cooperate, you must either force them (difficult, messy, expensive) or persuade them.

For that matter, those that wish to stop the boats should be thinking the same way. We've already seen how difficult, messy and expensive force has been, yet many wish to apply more.

*and no, that does not automatically mean I am for open borders. Try to be rational, people.

Mike:

16 Aug 2013 5:08:01pm

We absolutely rescue someone drowning in our pool. But they do not automatically come and live with us. But if they did, we would expect them to contribute significantly to the running of our household. What is so wrong with having a plan that is beneficial to both refugees and country?

Alfie:

Button:

16 Aug 2013 5:18:31pm

Well, what I find strange is you fail to understand what the author is saying. He suggests that calling someone racist or without moral and compassion does not appear to be a winning argument. And now you're talking about moral obligation again. It's like if you want to go through a door, you've already tried kick it open many times and it won't work, do you keep on kicking or work out another solution? The author's proposed way you may not agree with, then please discuss how you think the issue should be dealt with, rather than mere criticism.I think Shaun has raised a excellent point. Question to you: if you have 2 life jackets and there are 50 people about to drown, how do you save them all?

Dean:

If a person is drowning, you rescue them. If it is cold and they ask for a towel you give them one. If they then jump back in the water to repeat the cycle... you tell them to get lost.

A lot of the cynicism over boat arrivals is that they make it harder for us and act not as greatfull recipients of assistance but as con artists trying to rip off the system. That is not to say that is what they are, they just act that way.

Incognito:

Blzbob:

16 Aug 2013 6:03:20pm

Exactly. We accept them because it is the right thing to do, not because we somehow benefit from it.However accepting Then because it is the right thing to do is only right if they do the right thing themselves.

GJA:

16 Aug 2013 3:22:49pm

A distinction appears to be being drawn between immigrants and refugees that establishes one group as contributors and therefore good for Australia and the other as simply a drain on public resources and therefore bad. A further distinction is sometimes made between "queue jumpers" and those pursuing a more orderly process. This is, of course, a false distinction, one meant only to bolster an argument to reduce or eliminate refugee intake, as if the tiny fraction of arrivals by boat relative to the global total is sufficient to overwhelm Australian society and its resources.

If appeals to compassion or to move past bigotry are insufficient to change anyone's mind, I don't expect mere common sense to do much good. Contributions these people might provide are fairly obvious and historically-based, but those fighting against refugee acceptance tooth and nail are not to be swayed but such arguments either, I suspect. We have already reached the point, it seems, where accepting Tony Abbott's extremism might as well be the norm. We should withdraw from all international treaties and organisations. We don't respect them or intend to abide by them anyway.

GJA:

frangipani:

16 Aug 2013 4:02:51pm

The "tiny" number of arrivals isn't so tiny these days - and that's the problem. If we were talking a few thousand, they could certainly be absorbed - but we're talking 30,000 or so, and no sign of anything but an incremental increase. The numbers we have in process now would strain most of the cities; double or triple those numbers, and indeed we do start to see infrastructure and resources overwhelmed.

Australia was able to take tens of thousands of European refugees after WWII and Vietnamese after the end of that war, because the process was managed and controlled. Cities weren't overwhelmed, facilities and resources were available, and the rate of intake was geared to those resources. The asylum seeker movement is a different sort of thing, and it threatens any attempt to bring in arguably far more needy refugees under a managed program.

GJA:

16 Aug 2013 6:10:51pm

30,000 is nothing. It's less than .001 of the global total. But you're more worried about . . . what? housing stock availability? Who's driving your cab? Whether you can read the signs in the shop windows?

Those tens of thousands of European refugees had a tough go at the time, but now they're respected and celebrated. It can be the same for these tens of thousands.

andy:

frangipani:

16 Aug 2013 7:38:04pm

Actually, 30,000 is about 6 % of all asylum seekers in western countries. That's a fair whack, given our population.

And all those Europeans were selected, not self selected, which was kind of my point. And indeed, lest I be accused of racism, so were the Vietnamese and so are the west and central Africans who seem to be our most successful refugee arrivals these days.

The UN thinks there are about 800 to 900,000 asylum seekers for whom third country resettlement in a place like Australia is an optimum solution. The boat arrivals, generally speaking, are not on their list.

GJA:

Peter of Melbourne:

16 Aug 2013 4:24:01pm

"The best way to Stop the Boats is to become a pariah nation"Finally a bleeding heart with a plan... bloody amazing! Do you really think most Australians give a damn if the end result is the protection of our borders and our society, rather than the unmitigated disaster that Labor allowed - some would say encouraged - to happen.

reaver:

16 Aug 2013 6:06:27pm

Why should we withdraw from all international treaties and organisations, GJA? Being in most of them and complying with them is to our advantage. We should, of course, identify all of those from which we gain no advantage and withdraw from them (Sayonara and good riddance Australia-United States Free Trade Agreement).

Mythbuster:

16 Aug 2013 3:28:26pm

Well said.

And where better to start than with the outcasts and unwanted of British society that were sent here as quasi refugees 200 years ago and all the ones that subsequently arrived under similarly difficult circumstances and yet made this country what it is today

- a great nation where everyone who is willing and able to work can make a contribution and become a valued member of society and where the ones who cannot through no fault of their own are looked after by a caring community.

reaver:

16 Aug 2013 6:22:43pm

Quasi refugees, Mythbuster? If they have to whip you and put you in chains in order to take you somewhere then you're not a refugee. By your definition the US imported some 600,000 "quasi refugees" before the abhorrent practice was abolished after the American Civil War.

CP:

16 Aug 2013 3:29:07pm

Smarter, funnier, wealthier: because we were all dumb, boring and poor before the CALDs enriched us. The big sell is not the problem: I've been hearing the same message since I can remember, how we're being enriched by multiculturalism. The problem is the other message I've been hearing is how awful white people are, how lacking in culture, how bland our food, how stupid our children are, how horrible our history is. While you've been talking up diversity you've been running everyone else down, along with culture, values and history: from our flag and anthem (a dirge), our colonial history (racist), our suburbs (boring) and our (supposed) love of sport and disdain of the arts.

I've stopped listening. Now that i'm officially not allowed to say cobber and strewth all I see are hyphenated Australians who bring their baggage with them.

Zoltar:

16 Aug 2013 7:20:24pm

Precisely!

It is the bleeding heart social engineers, who demand that our society be 'enriched' by the addition of more immigrants, for whom assimilation is optional (multiculturalism), and their implicit despise of the current Australian ethnic and cultural mix, that many find offensive.

Stirrer:

16 Aug 2013 3:29:39pm

This article has really raised my hackles-my response may take two posts.

Shaun- do you think that if, after years of the Nazis demonising Jews the Jewish lobby would have got anywhere in trying to convince the German nation that Jews were good for Germany? or the Christian lobby claiming that Christians were good for Stalinst atheist Russia?

How about just a little bit of reality and common sense.Just what is so wrong with compassion? Are you telling me that Australians who gave so much to the victims of the tsunamis in SE Asia do not have the same compassion for Syrians escaping war- or Afghans escaping the Taliban?

That at heart the majority of Australians are so dumb they need to be brainwashed to see 'compassion" as self interest?Do you expect me to pander to those who have been scared out of their cotton picking minds by low life politicians who think they are leading us.

Well-Shaun I my heart bleeds every time I see a kid blown up or a whole people starving to death.My head tells me I cannot help them all but by God I can help some.

My head also tells me much of their despair is caused by the global geopolitical,economic and enviromental machinations of which WE are a part- our support for the wars in Veitnam, Iraq and now Syria for example.Cont on post 2

Clownfish:

16 Aug 2013 3:33:19pm

The author makes the basic mistake - or sophistry - of conflating unauthorised arrivals and refugees.

Perhaps fulfilling Orwell's dictum that 'no ordinary man could be such a fool, surveys have shown that Australians are indeed aware of such distinction and, contrary to the author's implications, Australians are overwhelmingly positive towards refugees and immigrants; it's those who enter the country without authorisation whom they dislike.

Maybe it is time that the author and those with whom his sympathies so obviously lie climbed down from their assumed moral high ground and simply admitted that they have lost the debate not because of some failure of 'message', but because they simply failed to honestly acknowledge this basic fact.

Tom1:

16 Aug 2013 3:35:05pm

Too late: Howard demonised boat people to win an election, and Reith produced photos to falsely back up his assertions.Abbott and Morrison, encouraged by what happen under Rudd, piled on the xenophobia, and now Abbott is almost repeating Howard's infamous speech. The only step left for the Coalition is machine guns.

A good deal of the support for the Coalition comes from the fact that most of the refugees are of a different religion and culture. This is an issue avoided by both parties, but can you imagine Abbott turning his back on 30,00 white Catholic refugees from say Zimbabwe.

I say cancel all religion, here and elsewhere, and let them all in as long as our economy can support them.

chalkie:

"Get Australia's most beloved refugees (Ahn Do, Frank Lowy and Dr Karl Kruszelnicki etc) and place them on billboards around our major cities. Next to their faces, place the words: "I'm a refugee"."

Yet take out the Ashkenazi jews from central Europe and the roll call of successful refugees gets pretty thin although the Vietnamese are doing very well yet with less fame or name recognition.

Trouble is, these are yesterday's refugees: it is a grossly false argument to say that these past successes are going to replicated with Sudanese goat herders or hyper-conservative Hazara or Karen hill-tribes. And the economic costs of these groups vastly outweighs their contribution - perhaps for generations as the Productivity report into immigration found.

el-viejo:

16 Aug 2013 3:37:06pm

Shaun, be very careful what you wish for, or it may backfire like a rusty cannon.

The positive icons that you quote are former refugees who arrived decades ago (Karl 64 yrs, Frank 61 yrs, and Anh 33 yrs ago) and have established an enviable record of integration in the Australian society, apparently with little reliance on Government funded welfare.

Conversely, the DIAC data on work/welfare performance of the current inflow make somewhat depressing reading, and could not be more different from the past record of the Eastern European (Frank and Karl) or the Indochinese (Anh) migrants.

The key difference is that hardly any of the contemporaries of Frank, Karl and Anh were self-selected arrivals; nearly all were processed offshore and selected for resettlement in Australia by Australian officers applying policy criteria.

A campaign that you propose could be sunk with all hands by a simple counterclaim: "Do not stop the boats, do not ask questions, pay billions up front, and in 30 years you might or might not get to live in a funnier, smarter and wealthier place".

Heretic:

gray:

16 Aug 2013 3:41:26pm

refugee advocates must ask themselves how many millions of refugees we could afford because what they wish would open the flood gates, then we would end up like egypt, civil war, and a multi cultural night mare, i am not racist just a realist

earl:

16 Aug 2013 3:42:10pm

Good points made by the article. I think there are 2 main problems with the current boat arrivals.1. High rates of unemployment even 5 years post arrival show lack of work ethic or enterprise. Inability to integrate and give back to the community.2. Connected point in that the more different and 'alien' the culture and separateness of the group, the greater the community backlash. C.f. vietnamese and middle eastern cultures. Asian cultures tend to be more service oriented with focus on business/economics, whereas middle eastern culture is more outspoken/polarising, also partly related to religiosity.

Dugong:

16 Aug 2013 3:43:23pm

Shaun, you have nailed it.

The thing that disturbs me most about the "stop the boats" policies now in place from both sides is the potential human talent we are missing out on.

PJ O'Rourke summed it up beautifully on Q & A a few years ago. Traditionally, he said, the left see people as a problem which needs solving (think Milne and her moral obligation, or the left's desire to speak collectively for the downtrodden masses). The right see people as opportunity, to make something of themselves, to grow the pie for everyone else.

Except where refugees post 9-11 are concerned.

We didn't have these feelings for the Vietnamese refugees (or at least, the Liberals didn't: Whitlam refused them entry as they were not likely to vote for a left-wing government, according to an SBS documentary).

O'Rourke then went on to point out that we should be happy to accept people that have tried so desperately hard to get here.

Why not contract Tasmanian boat builders to build say 4 large, fast, blue-water catamarans, and run a shuttle service for a token amount (say $500; they are currently paying about $10,000), for those with documentation? You increase manufacturing jobs in Tasmania, you save lives and put the people smugglers out of business all at the same time.

Yes, that's a thought bubble, and yes, there needs to be some way of capping the numbers, but wouldn't we be a better society as a result?

frangipani:

Peter:

16 Aug 2013 3:44:29pm

A big point that these people miss totally is that the majority of boat arrivals are Muslims who are unskilled, non english speaking and do not contribute to the country. (90% still on welfare after 5 years) This is apart from the fact that people are apprehensive that Muslims present a risk to the social fabric of the country like is happening in the Uk, france etc. To just label this as racist is offensive and does the lobby groups a further disservice.

the other Gordon:

16 Aug 2013 3:47:45pm

An interesting suggestion but the article does not reflect the actual situation. I think most Australians are in agreement with and welcome a refugee quota sourced from UNHCR camps around the world. This was demonstrated when the Government announced a 68% increase from 13,750 to 20,000 p.a. with the only comments I saw being positive. What I do not like is the de facto open door policy under the Refugee Convention where 90% of self-selecting maritime arrivals, many of whom are unidentifiable and of unknown character, are given the benefit of the doubt and deemed to be refugees with the right of permanent residency. With arrivals now running at 3,000 per month and increasing rapidly, regaining control of our borders is now essential. Correct me if necessary, but I believe the eminent refugees you mention all arrived via re-settlement progams.

Stirrer:

16 Aug 2013 3:50:02pm

Post 2. My heart tells me not to condemn those- who like my parents sought refuge in this great country-expecially those who are so desperate they risk life at sea in leaky boats.My head tells me that among them are a few so called 'economic" refugees- just like my parents but many are not.My heart broke when I saw kids drowning off Christmas Island.My head tells me anything is better than that-there are no rights at the bottom of the sea.My head also tells me of the evil in the hearts of people smugglers.So I reluctantly have to agree with off shore processing.BUT- I also agree with Adm Barrie that the long term solution is to improve conditions in source countries so that people will not have a need to leave their homeland. We must stop supporting wars which have nothing to do with us.

My head and heart tell me to feel absolutely disgust at the competition between Rudd and Abbott as to who sinks to the bottom first.

I do not consider a person who uses the most vulnerable to prove his 'manhood" a man- he is nothing but a dumb bully.I have no respect for a party which seeks to manipulate public opinion with fear mongering.

I am reminded of the work of Philip Zimbardo- in his book 'The Lucifer Effect" he showed how easy it is to convince good people to do evil things.Every tyrant in history proved that. NOT IN MY NAME!!

Marilyn:

16 Aug 2013 6:39:25pm

But they still have to get here and there is no such thing as off shore processing. If there was why don't we simply let people apply through our embassies for entry visas instead of wasting billions shunting them around the Pacific.

reaver:

16 Aug 2013 7:17:32pm

Every year millions of people all over the world apply for Australian visas through our embassies and Australian Visa Application Centres, Marilyn.Off-shore processing exists. The fact that you don't like something doesn't make it magically pop out of existence.

Stirrer:

16 Aug 2013 7:18:12pm

No such thing as offshore processing? Well there was and still is- except in the past they were sent to Australia or NZ-now it seems they will be 'resettled" in PNG.

As far as I know they do apply to our embassies for visas- but if you are an Afghan or Syrian escaping buttets where do you go for "papers" and without papers you end up in a refugee camp- or get on a boat.

Holcat:

16 Aug 2013 3:50:11pm

The argument is not helped by the fact that it is being advocated by the extreme left, who are not taken seriously in Australia. The Left assumes it has a monopoly on compassion and derides anyone who disagrees with it as either evil or stupid. At the same time, it has no solution to this issue other than letting anyone and everyone into the country. What it really needs to do is to get off its high horse and come up with a practical and sensible solution.

MJLC:

16 Aug 2013 3:54:18pm

"If refugee advocates wish to change public opinion in the asylum seeker debate, they need to change their approach"

It's probably too late for a self-appointed expert on hearts and minds like Mr Crowe, but on the off chance there's a youngster out there, I'd like to point out that success in matters like this is not found by "changing" approaches, but by keeping the approach that has garnered you the support you have so far, and ADDING other approaches that may help you hoover up support amongst those who aren't (for whatever reason) swayed by the argument you're currently using.

What Mr Crowe is drawing attention to is the persistency of perhaps otherwise well-meaning folk to maintain a determination to metaphorically want to have an argument with a Frenchman in English - and in that regard he is right on the money (On this site, for example, I've had several people choosing to argue the toss with me - despite us having the same goal - simply because my line of debate lacks moral purity in their eyes. The fact that I'm not interested at that very moment in winning THEM over seems to fly by unmolested). The point the author doesn't seem to grasp is that it isn't an either/or choice that needs to be made.

Detracter:

16 Aug 2013 3:55:32pm

Great article Shaun.I would add in "Australia`s Entitlement Culture" as part of the equation for the refugees. We are entitled to welfare, Medicare, Workers Comp and Superannuation because we are Australian and pay our taxes.Lots of people see these refugees as coming here to get these entitlements. Which we will defend, because in reality we don`t realise we personally did nothing to attain these entitlements and we use them blindly, because we are entitled to them.We don`t appreciate the courage and guts it takes to stand up in your homeland and say "this is crap, and I want something better, fairer or more hopeful for my family" They are not coming here for something to be entitled to,they are coming here from somewhere where they weren`t entitled to think and hope for themselves. They are coming here to Australia because they know that most of us believe in their hopes and tears.We need to move this debate beyond the political entitlement culture.Detracter

reaver:

16 Aug 2013 6:38:44pm

If people want to come to Australia in order to improve their lives and the lives of their families, Detracter, then they're free to apply for a migration visa in the same way that millions of people from all over the world do every year. Our refugee program should only be for refugees.

Peter the Lawyer:

16 Aug 2013 4:04:18pm

No one has ever answered the question as to how an illegal entrant can claim to be a refugee without any form of identity.

I would have thought that anyone who has destroyed his identity papers on arriving in Indonesia by plane, cannot be accepted as being a refugee, simply because there is then no proof of who he is and whether he is in fact in danger if he returns to his native land.

Can someone commenting here who is a supporter of the more open borders approach to asylum seekers please explain?

Form what I can see the refugee tribunals (stacked by Labor with those who favour granting residence to asylum seekers) just take the asylum seeker's word and do not do much in the way of investigating whether their claims are true.

Stirrer:

16 Aug 2013 7:33:30pm

Here is an answer for you - supposing you are a Hazari- living in an Afghan village which is controlled by the Taliban. Now suppose the Taliban mistreat you, beat you,starve you and chop off your wife's head.You decide to escape that tyranny- where do you get 'papers' and "identity" from?

Do you know how many undocumented refugees there are in Indonesia? Now suppose you were a Syrian-how many of the million or so of them in refugsee camps in Jordan have papers? their homes and possessions were blown up and burnt.

Lehan Ramsay:

16 Aug 2013 4:09:11pm

We live on an Earth that is getting crowded and polluted.

The big corporations would have us think that that is okay, that we will simply have found another planet to move to by the time it becomes a crisis. The American Government, acting irresponsibly, is pushing it's Mars stuff on us, because if anyone gets to Mars first it will be the Americans using the research Google & Co do with the profits they don't get responsibly, and the free promotion that those tech companies do through goods and services they give "free" to we, their "clients".

There just is not any land left that nobody wants, there are no remote areas to shuffle people off to, in the name of progress, or expansion, or new, free, world. Countries have got to settle for what they have, so now we see excessive pressure put on minority groups, ethnic groups, to leave their homelands. Homelands is not some glossy tv drama, it's the place where people can live with their own people.

Now you get whole tribes of people, from places that were once beautiful, once so long-time civilized being forced to splinter into small groups or individuals and move into huge settlements as refugees. Ironic, because they are not places to settle, nor are they really places of refuge, they're just symbolic holding pens that like cattle they might spend most of their lives in, getting slaugtered of they move away.

That's just the reality of it. It's crowded here, now, and this conflict, this mass expulsion of peoples, is not going to go away. We don't have any choice. We should be realistic about that. We are doing the same thing.

llanfair:

16 Aug 2013 4:10:41pm

Interesting piece Shaun, however if you consider Buddhist teaching this would suggest that compassion and wisdom are two sides of the same coin. As such I am not sure that simply spelling out a logical economic argument is answer.

While you highlight a number of refugees who have contributed to Australia, no doubt someone could also come up with an economic analysis that demonstrates that the benefits these people have contributed are outweighed by the drain others make on our welfare system. If wisdom and compassion are "the two eyes that work together to see deeply", simply suggesting that people have some potential self interest in supporting refugees is not the right path.

Hostility to refugees appears to be most prominent in those who feel they will lose from the situation (economically or ideologically), and while the Refugee lobby pushes its cause, it does not do so in isolation of a range of other lobbies that promote the need to address perceived disadvantage within Australia (in education, health, age care, "Christian" culture etc.). While at a guess I would say that 95% of all Australians are in the top decile of human prosperity, this is not something openly acknowledged and hence our own self-awareness of our situation is based on a false premise - regardless of being better off that 90% of people, I am not as well off as Gina, hence I am disadvantaged.

Both major parties tap into this sentiment and pander to the irrational fear it creates. The Greens on the other hand constantly reinforce the idea more handouts are required to avoid yet another "human rights" breach - they are the party of perceived victims.

So long as a vast number of Australians think they are victims of our system, they are unlikely to lend a helping hand to victims from other countries.

Briano:

16 Aug 2013 4:10:59pm

A great article with a strong message about selling the message to the people of Australia through information. As an example, in the 1970's we welcomed 100,000 Vietnamese refugess to Australia and only 2000 came by boat over a five year period which were organised by family groups and not people smugglers. They were mostly welcomed because Australians were well aware of their circumstances and, due mostly to our knowledge of the Vietnam war, could empathise with their plight. By contrast, the average Australian knows very little of the homeland problems of the current flood of refugees around the world and is puzzled about why some countries such as Pakistan are creating refugees when it is perceived that there is no conflict in those countries, (we expect refugees from Aghanistan or Iraq but why are there Pakistani and Iranian refugees?). We are well aware of the industry that has developed around people smuggling where it is known that people are buying their way to the head of queue and that some are not actually genuine refugees but are simply seeking an improved lifestyle on the coat tails of genuine refugees. Unless someone takes the trouble to explain in more detail, the message is not going to get through.

Alpo:

16 Aug 2013 4:16:41pm

Yep, we have started the long slide into anti-refugees paranoia. The less well off sectors of Australian society are the main target audience here (hence the very strong interest from both major Parties on this issue): Are you unhappy? Are you angry? Forget about the system that is not working for you, just ventilate your anger against those "queue jumpers" (Don't you really hate people who jump you in a queue?).But the real image of the queue that the Liberals are subliminally manipulating is not the alleged queue to immigrate to Australia, but the queue for jobs and Government support. In the mind of Australian voters, those refugees must be seen as jumping the queue where WE are standing and waiting....Devious propaganda at its best!

Keith Lethbridge Snr:

16 Aug 2013 4:18:53pm

G'day Shaun.

Thanks for your article.

Yes, those of us not keen on uninvited immigrants might be persuaded if we thought uninvited invaders would benefit Australia. We're still trying to convince the original inhabitants of that, but haven't succeeded yet. Your examples don't really add to the argument.

Never heard of Ahn Do, but if he's funny, perhaps he could take a boat-load of other alleged humourists back with him. They could swap yarns on the journey.

Frank Lowy: Can't recall him sharing any of his loot with me. Does he pay more taxes than the average rich bloke?

Dr Kruszelnicki? Not ringing a bell. Are we so short of smart fellas that we have to hope they'll arrive uninvited?

No doubt they're all great citizens. However, the biggest problem we have to face in Australia (if not the planet) is over-population.

Australia is a land of poor soils & limited rainfall. In 50 years time our children will be wondering why we never worked out a population policy, let alone opened our borders for funny, rich or smart intruders.

When that happens, no doubt they'll be funny, rich or smart enough to head where the grass is greener.

Titas Aduxas:

16 Aug 2013 4:22:43pm

i don't believe that the boat people are anything else but economic migrants,we have enough muslim people in our midst,people who hold no respect for us our our traditions.To avoid the misery inflicted by the socialist/greens on people in Europe, we must demand a louder voice in any further decisions on the future of these migrants.Decisions to resettle people are made by people who don't have to live with them. In Brisbane we have,seemingly overnight,had suburbs taken over by muslims,many of them from somalia or sudan,they are like fish out of water,with no respects for people or property.Former residents of suburbs like Moorooka, mostly low income tenants, have moved out with not much of a future.

Things are tough enough in this country without the added burden of having to live near hostile illegal migrants,let those who sign them in, live with them.

ru4real:

16 Aug 2013 4:25:33pm

Response to Crowe in The Drum:

Although I heartily agree with your argument, and proposed solution, fear is a very difficult emotion to dislodge, even with rational action.

This fear is based on carefully delineating 'us' and 'them', maximising differences, and adopting a hostile approach. It is not dissimilar to how an intolerant attitude towards our indigenous Australians developed.

John Howard led successive LNP governments into the dark, murky emotional xenophobic space created by Pauline Hanson. Aided by Phillip Ruddock and Peter Reith, he proceeded with the deliberate and dehumanising 'con-job' of mis-labelling asylum seekers as 'boat people' and 'illegal immigrants' and blurring the boundaries in the common understanding of the meaning of 'border protection'.

The Tampa and 'children overboard' horrors mark the beginning of a disgraceful national mind-set which has resulted in the two major parties' policies which reject of asylum seekers (particularly those who have the temerity to approach our shores in boats).

A Buddhist approach recognises the 'commonality' of 'self' and 'others'. All people suffer: the distinction is purely arbitrary, in name only. The best way to reduce suffering is to take selfishness out of our thinking, and assist others. This develops compassion and allows us to asylum seekers as real people with many resources to share, particularly real human qualities which will further develop this nation of 'immigrants'.

Realist:

16 Aug 2013 4:33:08pm

As a person who believes that Australia can take many more each year than the 25,000 or so that we currently do, surely we can choose who they are. many of the current people arriving are fleeing some kind of persecution, however simply because they can stump up $10,000 or whatever the latest fare is does not meant that we should take them. We should be selective and looking at the people in the camps scattered around the world who can contribute to our country. There may well be compassionate grounds to admit refugees who simply lob here un invited, but why is that a reason to let them stay? After all if we let in all who wished to come , not just those with 10k, how many would come? None of the pro refugee camp seem able to answer that question, or do not want to or even talk about it. Why are we letting in people who are still on welfare after many years of being here? There are many who could come who would contribute, why bring in those with large extended families when we could select who we want? Australia cannot save the worlds refugees, but we can give a welcoming home to those who can help us, I am sure that there would be a few million rotting in camps with skills we need, we are not the saviour of all those who wish to bludge here, it is our country and we should share it with those less fortunate, but not those who can buy their way in.

a hill:

16 Aug 2013 4:33:13pm

This is so true, and so surprising for a country with such a recent history of immigration, often from people looking for a better life.

I'd like to see a campaign where people express where their relatives came from and what they did to contribute to Australian society - Anh Do does this very well. It could be a catchy social media campaign.

TheDevilYouDont:

16 Aug 2013 4:33:33pm

Given the amount of comments on articles such as this which demonstrate fundamental misunderstandings about asylum seeker law and the legal concepts involved, there is very little point in trying to have a discussion based on logic and reason. Several comments on this particular article amply demonstrate that, and there are only a few so far. Leaving aside those who genuinely argue we should not accept any refugees, opposing arguments usually boil down to two forms:

1. We don?t object to refugees coming here, we just don?t like how these refugees got here;2. We don?t object to refugees coming here, we just don?t think they are refugees.

In either case, opposing arguments are framed so that even if all else fails, they can still cry ?no fair? without conceding they are opposed to refugees. When so many people either refuse to accept, or are incapable of understanding asylum seekers are not doing anything illegal then it is clear that the opposition are working within a framework where the presence of refugees is against their self interest entirely, because if they have no problem with refugees then there would be no reason ignore a legal fact.

This article claims that advocates are the ones who have shifted the field of debate from reason to emotion. I contend they are attempting to talk to the opposition in their own language. It will be impossible to convince the opposition to logically consider their own self interest, when their emotions are screaming at them that any attempt to do so is an attempt to violate that self interest. By appealing to people?s compassion and by attempting to evoke empathy, advocates are seeking to do exactly what this article suggests.

EMW:

16 Aug 2013 4:35:04pm

The facts concerning refugee arrivals do not change people's minds. The stories of heartrending sorrow do not change people's minds. The economic argument does not change people's minds. I know - I am one of those 'refugee advocates' who has used every means I can think of- including the arguments suggested in this article, to very little effect.

I find that what many people say about asylum seekers should more logically be applied to our migration intake, but we don't talk about that at election time. It is often said to me that 'house prices go up' because of the demand from tens of thousands of asylum seekers -not the 200,000 plus migrants who enter each year.

There is something deeper and more visceral going on here, and that is why it is hard to change.

frangipani:

16 Aug 2013 7:53:16pm

I have a pretty good understanding of refugees, an understanding as well of irregular migration, and a decent comprehension of formal migration.

I'll tell you right now what the problem with the advocacy groups is: the failure to accept that there are differences between these categories. There are genuine refugees who deserve our protection and support, but there are plenty of self-selected asylum seekers who aren't truly refugees, and everyone, with the exception of the courts and the advocates, understands that. You can't expect to have broad public support for asylum seekers when it's quite clear that many of those arriving are not refugees but economic migrants taking advantage of our very weak determination process.

You want to get support for refugees? Then convince the public that the determination process is fair, balanced and correct, not a walkover for anyone who pops up on a boat with no documents. That means, refugee advocates need to start backing a more rigorous and credible determination process that convinces the public the real refugees are getting through and the opportunists are not.

Until advocates are prepared to back a tougher stance on what constitutes a "well founded" fear of persecution, they're on a hiding to nowhere. It's a credibility issue.

Treetop:

16 Aug 2013 4:47:21pm

Refugees may make Australia smarter but at the moment Australia has a shortage of about 500,000 homes and the health system is under severe pressure with many waiting many months and years to get treatments .If Australia can increase the supply of housing and vital services , skilled refugees could be helpful to Australia The billions spent on refugees in detention centres could go towards increasing the supply of affordable housing in Australia and also education and health services in AustraliaIf more people have affordable housing in Australia , the economy will improve as more people will have extra money to spend on the non essentials of life as spending in this area helps to support a huge amount of Australian businesses.

DocT:

16 Aug 2013 4:47:37pm

Great article thankyou, a step in the right direction but still fails to address the fundamental issue. Whatever our limit of intake of refugees is, 10 000, 100 000, 1 000 000 we will still have the exact same problems of what do we do with the 10 001st, 100 001st, 1 000 001st refugee? When is it OK to draw the line and say 'We've had enough benefit to our country from refugees thanks' or 'It is now OK leave people to rot in hideous circumstances because we have our quota'. Any answers anyone?

Oh Lordy:

"But why is this the case? After a decade of intense advocacy, why has the pro-refugee movement been unable to transform elite and popular opinion?"

Absolutely hysterical!!

Why don't you try this:

The pro-refugee movement spent the best part of a decade insisting that black was white (i.e. that the 'Pacific Solution' had nothing to do with the precipitous drop in the arrival of asylum-seeker boats) and howled, shrieked and screamed down anyone who suggested otherwise, branding them all as ill-educated, racist rednecks.

Their 'advocacy' did actually work, moving a sizeable enough portion of the Australian population to support (or, at least, acquiesce) to Rudd's 'firm but fair' legislation changes in 2008.

Disaster followed...and I mean DISASTER..

Over a thousand dead, mass tragedy and trauma, many billions A$ wasted, the trashing of any sense of fairness in Australia's annual refugee intake (self-selecting immigrants taking the place of vetted, genuine refugees), a total loss of control...

Yet the pro-refugee lobby still STILL insisted on insulting the intelligence of the average Australian (euphemistically referred to here as 'popular opinion') by insisting that it was all the work of 'push factors', evidence otherwise be damned, and anyone who dissented was howled, shrieked and screamed down and, naturally, branded as an ill-educated, racist redneck...

And they wonder why 'popular opinion' now ignores them and regards them as nothing more significant than morally vain windbags who have left a trail of true disaster in their insufferably self-righteous wake...

You clowns have blood on your hands...'popular opinion' knows it!

You have also insulted everyone, loudly and repeatedly, who is not prepared to take a determindly blind and rigidly politically correct view as to the causes of this disaster....and 'popular opinion' knows it!

I...and 'popular opinion'... hold you in utter contempt..

Time to wake up and smell the coffee...the 'changing public opinion' horse has well and truely bolted!

Proud thinking Australian:

16 Aug 2013 4:53:06pm

There are practical limits on the levels of immigration Australia can process. We have exceeded these limits for sometime now. The large western Sydney centres for disadvantage, welfare dependance drug and gun crime are now only added to by a complete lack of planning for successful immigration outcomes.

Compassion is a good thing. Setting people up to be on the fringe and fail on welfare is not compassion its just an misconceived people dumping solution by neglect - much like the PM's PNG solution.

Planned immigration needs to ensure people coming here are trained in English languages skills, suitable work and employment skills in self-funded, self-sustaining assimilation programs as deemed necessary until they can graduate and not be at a disadvantage entering into the wider economy and community. We have our aged, disabled and poor to look after too. We want good outcomes and value for this investment in our future people and those in need.

Simple, fair and transparent. Welcome to Australia mate!Why our political leaders can't reach this logical conclusion is typical of their poor PC limited thinking. Thinking in the box is not working people.

Zoltar:

16 Aug 2013 4:58:32pm

Given that the number of unemployed Australians, is greater than the total number of refugees that Australia has accepted, and that are still of working age, refugees have contributed nothing (no increase in output) to this country. All that refugees have done, is: displaced others from jobs, housing, training, etc; burdened us with billions in annual costs, which has eroded our opportunity to help far more in less expensive settings, and eroded our ability to intervene in other countries, so that fewer people feel the need to flee; and of course, by embracing victimhood, and choosing to flee rather than to fix their countries, refugees have robbed their persecutors of resistance.

If Australia had no Ahn Do, somebody else would be a comedian. If Australia had no Frank Lowy, somebody else would amass a personal fortune in the usual manner, by exploiting employees, suppliers, the government, the environment, etc. And, if Australia had no Karl Kruszelnicki, somebody else would have received his education, and somebody else would achieve his ranking in the science communicator stakes.

The only argument that refugee advocates can make is the compassionate one, because the refugee contribution argument doesn't stack up. Not when we have such a large pool of unemployed/under employed people in this country. Of course, the same argument broadly applies to immigration as well, but this doesn't make it any less valid.

Davo:

16 Aug 2013 5:05:23pm

I wander how the navy feels about becomming the boat people whipping boys later this year?

They will have to deal with the deaths of women children, young men, old people regardless of who is responsible for them being in Australain waters. They will also likely be elligable for a visit to the Hague to face crimes against humanity for breaking international law of the sea, human rights etc. What a shame the polis don't have to face what our young naval people will be experiencing this year, once the Liberals win the election.

Marilyn:

reaver:

16 Aug 2013 7:23:02pm

What you have written is a non sequitur, Marilyn. Setting aside the fact that it's not true even if Australians had slaughtering hundreds of thousands of Iraqis and Afghans and had destroying millions of their homes it still wouldn't entitle them to enter Australia. They would in fact have even less claim to enter Australia as they would be fleeing to us claiming that they're fleeing from us.

damon:

16 Aug 2013 7:54:03pm

Marilyn, I am not asking them to support me, they are asking me to support them.

On your next visit to Earth, maybe, instead of criticising all and sundry, you could provide some food for thought by telling us how you would support all the people you would welcome into Australia. Exactly how large an increase in taxes would be required?

KK:

16 Aug 2013 5:25:39pm

'Contributions these people might provide are fairly obvious'.

Not to me they aren't. The history of recent boat arrivals holds very few stories of positive contributions to Australia. For the most part they have been a huge economic drain and according to Dept of Immgration statistics, are likely to remain so for some time.

reaver:

16 Aug 2013 5:49:00pm

The suggested tactic wouldn't work for one simple reason- Australians support refugees that we bring over here to live, people like Ahn Do, Frank Lowy and Dr Karl Kruszelnicki all of whom were resettled from overseas by the Australian government of the day. Australians don't support asylum seekers who come here uninvited. As for the idea that support could be created for asylum seekers by demonstrating to Australians that they'll benefit from welcoming asylum seekers into the community repeated DEEWR and DIAC reports have shown that those who come by boat as asylum seekers are considerably less likely to get jobs and to learn English than those resettled from overseas and are considerably more likely to rely on welfare and for a longer period of time than those resettled from overseas.Australians aren't stupid and are more than capable of understanding the differences between refugees invited and resettled by our own government and those who come against both our wishes and our immigration law*. The reason that asylum seeker advocates have been so unsuccessful in their attempts to win over the public is because they treat the public as ignorant fools who will believe anything that they're told. In reality most of the electorate is better educated about this matter than most of the asylum seeker advocates think they are and know that groups like the Asylum Seeker Resource Centre are being less than entirely honest when they put out releases that state things like "No boat arrivals who are subject to rigorous security checks, have ever been found to be a threat to national security" (there are currently 58 boat arrivals in detention because they've been judged to be far to dangerous to be allowed into the community), "like a speeding ambulance, asylum seekers are exempt from the usual application of the law because they are in an emergency situation" (This is a ridiculous statement that should need no further debunking), "Australia is unique in the world in its policy of mandatory and indefinite detention" (Canada also has a mandatory detention scheme for boat arrivals based on the Australian system), "many people smugglers are in fact motivated for altruistic reasons" (and clearly not the money that they charge) and "Asylum seekers DO NOT receive any payments from Centrelink" (My people have a saying to describe this kind of thing- "A half truth is a whole lie", the idea that a fact told with the intention to mislead is no different from a lie. The payments that asylum seekers get are channelled through the Red Cross Asylum Seeker Assistance Scheme rather than Centrelink, but are no less paid for by the Australian taxpayers than Centrelink payments are). All of those quotes came verbatim from the Asylum Seeker Resource Centre's own press releases and are only a tiny number of the quotes that I could have chosen to illustrate my point.

reaver:

16 Aug 2013 6:58:46pm

cont. from above

*It is a breach of the Migration Amendment Act 1993 for any foreign national to remain in, to enter or to attempt to enter Australian territory unless they are in possession of a valid visa. Their reason for doing so does not change the requirement to have a visa.

Talulah:

16 Aug 2013 6:00:39pm

What I want to know is why refugee advocates expend so much energy on defending the rights of refugees while time and again they literally walk over Australia's homeless on the street? Perhaps because many of them actually enjoy the political activism that goes with refugee advocacy rather than the cold hard reality of having to deal with a homeless person standing right in front of them.

Refugee advocates - talk to me first about how we are going to address Australia's growing homeless problem, how all Australians should have access to the same rights that our refugees get (i.e. free housing and university education), then talk to me about asylum seekers.

And don't tell me that our own disenfranchised and impoverished deserve less.

I'm tired of the talk that Australia is a wealthy country that can afford all - the reality is we can't. We also have an increasingly growing gap between the rich and the poor.

We have some serious issues of our own to address and this is why the refugee advocates haven't sold us.

Heretic:

16 Aug 2013 6:03:40pm

Einstein on Compassion / humanitarianism:

A human being is a part of the whole called by us universe, a part limited in time and space. He experiences himself, his thoughts and feeling as something separated from the rest, a kind of optical delusion of his consciousness. This delusion is a kind of prison for us, restricting us to our personal desires and to affection for a few persons nearest to us. Our task must be to free ourselves from this prison by widening our circle of compassion to embrace all living creatures and the whole of nature in its beauty.

twojays:

16 Aug 2013 6:04:30pm

Hi Terry, as a fellow political science PhD (mine not so recent) I would have thought in the first place you would point out the obvious that in fact a focus on social and economic realities is the left and not refugee policy underpinned by free market individualism as currently put forward by human rights advocates. the left hasn?t failed it has struggle to find space for a moral argument for social justice - that basically what your talking about. And this is where the debate ultimately has to focus. legal rights are enjoyed by a minority of refugees. A focus on social justice (that includes recognising the importance of human rights instruments) enables us to talk in more concrete terms about what the focus of refugee policy should be and why it is in the national interest. When the confused stop their awful clashing, ear bashing noise - the real left will rise again!

Snufkin:

16 Aug 2013 6:07:58pm

Good article. Thank you. The scramble to claim the high moral ground inevitably gets up Australia's collective nostril, whether it concerns asylum seekers, climate change or animal welfare. (I'm interested in the latter area by the way). Much of the current invective by "progressives" reminds me of berating, preaching "God botherers". Not many of us tend to be sympathetic to such persons. I often think of a Herge character wearing a placard saying "You are all Doomed. Repent! Repent!" while beating a drum, whenever I read some of the more hysterical rants on climate change. Of course it happens the other way as well, particularly where asylum seekers are concerned. The numbers are actually very small, and it seems at least likely that persons willing to risk so much to make a new start in a foreign land might just have a certain amount of initiative and courage. Surely such persons could have a lot to contribute? Another point which should perhaps be made is that dreadful consequences can happen as a direct result of well meaning, but poorly thought out actions. I do not think Rudd falls into this category, by the way. I think his motives were purely self serving and political when he unilaterally altered the imperfect, but still functioning approach of the previous government. His current acrobatics speak for themselves.Have a good one.

Graham K:

16 Aug 2013 6:16:22pm

I think one thing that the people who support illegal immigration could do is arrange to have the Government deduct $200 a week each from their salaries to support the cost of these illegal immigrants. In short, they need to put their money where their mouth is. But of course they will never do that because these people always expect other working Australians to pay high taxes to support their views.

stephen:

16 Aug 2013 6:20:29pm

Ahn Do can cook, (but that's all he can do), Frank Lowy was suspected 7 years ago siphoning profits,( tax free) off to a bank in Lichtenstein - not to mention that the head of ACCC, then, was assumed by good authorities to be protecting him by isolating the grocery chain, ALDI, from making its mark in the suburbs via Westfield - and your last example, a Dr. Karl somebody, gets himself on tele all the time in a floral shirt and sneakers and a dribble, and my niece won't stop laughing because she reckon he's Molly Meldrum's little brother, (sorry, Mel.)

Instead, why don't we try to raise the standards of the local population ?Or is the standards of things not your point, as you wanted to exclaim via your example ? but then, really, do you want to ameliorate the existing culture which may exceed even your own meagre expectations ?

Peter Schmidt :

16 Aug 2013 6:25:13pm

The way things are in southern France, in ten years, we will see a Cairo style confrontation between christians and muslims. I often meet with an elderly German couple in a dog park. The last time they were back, they were amazed and alarmed by the number of refugees living there. They say it is not the clean and welcoming place anymore.

Roger Hawcroft:

16 Aug 2013 6:25:25pm

I'm sorry but this article misses the point. This issue should not be about politics nor should it be about selfishness. Both or those influences are about selfishness - the worst of traits and one of the most paramount in our society at the moment -to our total shame.

Those of us who argue for compassion and a humane approach to asylum seekers should not have to couch our pleas in terms of how it will benefit us. - "Oh, there's a poor man drowning - save him and we'll give you some browny points". Just as with that man, we should save asylum seekers out of ethical and moral obligation.

That a majority of us choose to reject welcoming other human beings, let alone those who are in dire straits, is a savage indictment on Australian society and those who represent it.

Yes, I've heard all the facile arguments about population growth and jobs being lost and asylum seekers being queue jumping "economic" immigrants, or even that they are disguised "terrorists" or worse. These arguments are typical of loud mouthed ignorance spread by the worst of selfish and ignorant morons who care only for themselves.

I often hear that term "un-Australian" bandied around as some sort of horrific crime - as though there were some sharply defined and clear set of attributes that defined: "Australian". Of course, there aren't, and those that are commonly used such as "mate-ship", "egalitarian", "lay-back", "friendly" - these are the complete opposite of what is being displayed in relation to asylum seekers. So, if people want to describe the behaviours they don't like as "un-Australian" - the current attitude to and treatment of asylum seekers must be as "un-Australian" as one can get - particularly given that we are a nation of immigrants.

I am totally disgusted with both major political parties. They have both shown themselves to be ruled by populism and ignorance as they race one another to the bottom on this issue.

What a massive difference there is today from 1971 when I arrived as an immigrant in this country - arrived to hope and support and welcome. Of course there were the xenophobic ignorant such as Pauline Hanson provided such appeal much later on but overall there was welcome and understanding of the worth of immigration to our nation. There was also an understanding of our moral obligation to help those who were worse off than ourselves.

We are *the richest nation on earth* in wealth per capita terms. We have wasted infrastructure across our massive country - an island continent that is predominantly empty.

No - we shouldn't have to become even more selfish and demonstrate the benefit that people fleeing torment, homelessness, and worse could bring to our country. Instead we should show the moral fortitude and charitable instincts to give these peop

harbi:

16 Aug 2013 6:27:41pm

It's about time that Australians were fully informed on the costs of immigration, illegal or otherwise:Welfare costs,Incarceration costs,Anti-terrorism policing costs,etc.Most Australians do not share the "open borders" mentality of the elite.Australia needs to learn from Europe's mistakes: "the annual cost to Danish society of non-Western immigrants is put at 15.7 billion kroner (2.1 billion euros)"http://www.presseurop.eu/en/content/news-brief/628911-denmark-debates-cost-immigrantsIn Sweden, "60.5% of the entire welfare budget was spent on immigrants"http://affes.wordpress.com/2012/09/19/ekonomiskt-bistand-i-hela-sverige-1998-2011/The government purports to represent the people.It confiscates their earnings to fund its largesse.The people have a right to know whether their money is being spent effectively.Bring on a cost benefit analysis of immigration, illegal and otherwise.

JE:

16 Aug 2013 6:30:53pm

I live on Christmas Island and watch the boats arriving day after day. The pressure these arrivals put on the infrastructure of our small island is enormous. The boats that arrive and the unfortunate ones that sink at sea use our resources - emergency personnel, fuel and hospital staff. While the boats sinking is an undeniable tragedy our focus should and has to be on stopping the boats in the first place. I am so tired of bleeding hearts talking about compassion, we have to get realistic and enforce strict guidelines on who and how people will be accepted into our country. This is the only way the deaths will stop. When will we stop being apologists for taking control of our borders?

Kym Dawson:

16 Aug 2013 6:38:15pm

Shaun, You have a very short memory!....since the 1950's the benefits to Australia which immigrants and refugees have gratefully poured upon this country is historically well known as they have demonstrated as hard working taxpayers and business operators...Why are you framing the present day refugees as if they are any different? Whether it be Vietnam, Iraq or Afghanistan...we cannot invade and bomb and terrorize the inhabitants of a country and not help those fleeing the direct or indirect consequences of the policies of our 1st World economies. If 'they' really want to 'stop the boats' then we should bomb the hell out of the 3rd World with Goods and Services and Infrastructure...invade their countries with teachers, doctors etc...and at a fraction of the cost compared to the obscene budgets of the present Global War Economy which is pulling all the strings...Rapid processing of the most desperate people on earth into this country would not only benefit the nation but also deal a major blow to the insideous multi-million dollar industry of Privatized Detainee Centres.

Coogera:

16 Aug 2013 7:03:51pm

If you read research articles from the Australian Department of Immigration and Citizenship you can see the difference. Keep in mind also that the economy is different. Now there is little need for unskilled workers,

tomtoot:

16 Aug 2013 6:39:46pm

I don't want people drowning at sea, I want the boats stopped, and people smugglers put out of business.I want refugees to have a chance of a better life.I would like to see Australia assist more in the offshore processing refugees.But above all we must not forget that refugees are people and we should treat them with dignity.

Coogera:

16 Aug 2013 6:47:15pm

The article totally missed the point. A lot of the debate is about informal arrivals and whether this human trafficker model of migration should be encouraged or prohibited. Many of those opposed to a human trafficker model of migration are nonetheless committed to accepting refugees for permanent resettlement and supporting refugees in camps.

The fact that we are number two on a per capita basis globally in resettling refugees and that we are a major contributor to financing of refugee camps elsewhere means we have accepted refugees and their value.

Perhaps the author needs to reconsider her question. A more appropriate question is how Australians can warm to human traffickers and ignore their associated prostitution, kidnapping and drug peddling. I am sure a good advertising agency can repackage these criminals as warm fuzzy people that love whales.

damon:

16 Aug 2013 7:09:27pm

To establish their credentials, the compassion lobby, and their political representatives, should ask the Australian population exactly how large an increase in their taxes they would accept to maintain an ever-increasing number of these people on indefinite welfare.

Waterloo Sunset. 2014:

Most 2nd3rd4th generation Australians, don't apply for family to be migrated here.

There is a blatant push from new - and mailny recently arrived ethnicity migrants - to get as many over here as possible. Franticly.

Here is a snip from the Department of immigration.

"Family stream migrants are selected on the basis of their family relationship with their sponsor in Australia. There is no test for skills or language ability as required for skilled stream migrants."

I won't prevail on the moderators time by supplying more snips, however let me just say that what is happening is that if one does the math, one will find replication of certain ethnic groups on a quite alarming scale.

This in turn dilutes the traditional make up of existing denizens. Not in a balanced way, but in a tumultuous way, that shifts the whole dynamics of a small population such as Australia.

Now, with a properly executed integration that can be absorbed.

I wonder if it is being properly executed?

So it isn't the 50 men that you see on a boat (or a plane), but it's the spectre of hundreds of thousands standing in the shadows.

Kym Dawson:

16 Aug 2013 7:22:29pm

Shaun, I would add to my previous comment that it is not the failure of the refugee lobby to show Australians how refugees/asylum seekers will benefit our country (nor is it their job to prove what is already well known historical facts regarding the economic and cultural diversity refugees/immigrants bring to our generous country)...it is the failure of journalists and mass media...or rather their success in dehumanizing these desperate people at the behest of the editorial policies and limitations which seems to be an endemic but compulsory filter insisted upon by the not so free Murdoch misinformation industry.

Bruce77:

16 Aug 2013 7:58:45pm

I agree with the author that the "humanity" and " moral obligation" arguments have failed but only partly due to the self interest factor which is what he suggests.

One other reason is that the massive amount of funds spent (billions of $ per year - has it $10 bill p.a. Yet?) to help just 20,000 people a year - absolute stupidity and that is why I can't support these misguided fools. The humanity argument alone would convince me if we spent those same funds to the other 40 million refugees but only if spent offshore - anything spent on-shore fails the value for money test.

Another reason the refugee lobby has failed is that the people see the immense problems Europe has caused itself by being too humane. The people realise that unless refugees can be absorbed at low cost then there will be massive social, cultural and economic problems for our children. Europe has failed this test so why should we go down the same path?

Free trade is the oldest argument in federal politics and the issue that literally defined the federation era but opposition exists to the TPP, courtesy of the Investor-State Dispute Resolutions clause.